Interesting - I've never heard of New Caledonia before. It's actually a non-trivial economy: with more than one sixteenth of New Zealand's GDP (a higher GDP per capita than New Zealand).
.
The place uses the CFP, which is fixed to the euro and supported by the French central bank.
.
This place does over half its trade with the EU, and less than 10% with Australia & New Zealand combined (despite proximity). That suggests opportunities from closer cooperation, removing regulatory barriers and raising the profile (how many business people in Australia or New Zealand even know that New Caledonia exists?).
.
And this little place has over quarter of the world's known nickel reserves...
.
Funny world... thank you Economist filling the gaps.

Should check news from the 1980s and/or 1990s. From my understanding, there had been tensions within the communities that reside there. Back in the 1980s I believe it was against nuclear testing by the French. Otherwise believe there were segments of society desiring independence or autonomy. I seem to recall some riots taking place many years ago.

Interesting - I've never heard of New Caledonia before.
.
Don't worry, they have never heard of you.
(rimshot)
.
I guess you have never watched the re-runs of McHale's Navy.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0644897/
.
NPWFTL
Regards

Given a population of 252,000 and high per capita incomes, the territory is about as fit to be an independent nation as Iceland is.
.
That said, New Caledonia appears to suffer from much more inequality, much higher diversity, lower levels of education, weaker civil society and disputes over how to allocate the proceeds of mining. So an independent New Caledonia is unlikely to be an Iceland-like paragon of cohesive liberal democracy, human rights and social success.
.
Still, I'm sure that New Caledonia could hold a referendum and form an independent nation if there was a constituency for that/ if they could agree amongst themselves to request this. As always, rising educational attainment and a stronger middle class is probably key to success, under any state relationship.

I haven't given New Caledonia a look in a decade or so. Thought there were isues about tensions in the society there, but may be things cooled due to political reforms, or benefitting from a commodities boom (with China and others?), or other factors .
`
Regardless it is an interesting piece of history.

New Caledonia is famous for its plants. Strange and wonderful gymnosperms (including a parasitic podocarp), primitive flowering plants, including what's currently believed to be the most primitive of all, the genus Amborella. Then there's a wonderland of palms, many of them cultivated tropical and near-tropical climates around the world. There's also an extraordinary number of nickel-accumulating plants; of course the economy features nickel mines.

Michael, it had nothing to do with Le Bombe, more to do with the kanaks being sidelines by the French colonialists, who were in a majority and wanting to stay French, whereas the kanaks didn't.

One of the reasons why indigenous Fijians are so prone to launching military coups, they can see what happens if they let an immigrant group take too much power and grow too strong (in Fiji's case vis a vis ethnic Indians), i.e. you get sidelined.

So there were no protests from locals? Just Greenpeace and what not coming around agitating?
`
Or it didn't become an important issue in the big picture of things? (French stopped testing, people moved on)

Thought Guam was self-governing? It is has regular elections for the executive and legislature, a multiparty system, etc.
`
Well I would like to see it combine with the Marianas and become a state (maybe join the Union at the same time as Puerto Rico).

All of these territories are self governing and democratic (I believe).
.
Yet they still generally maintain "territory" status for security guarantees, subsidies, favourable customs arrangements, representation in international disputes and access to services like health and education.
.
It would be great for human prosperity and success for the US to go back to into expansionist mode, perhaps taking most of the Caribbean, Central America and perhaps even one day Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador (if the proper political foundations could be built, if the requisite institutions could be build and if populations of these states vote to join the Union).
.
But there really isn't much of a political constituency in the US for this happening, is there?

What is this supposed to mean?
`
"It would be great for human prosperity and success for the US to go back to into expansionist mode, perhaps taking most of the Caribbean, Central America and perhaps even one day Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador (if the proper political foundations could be built, if the requisite institutions could be build and if populations of these states vote to join the Union)."
`
Came off as a non-sequitur to be honest. I don't think consideration about statehood is the same as colonization or gunboat policies of the 19th and early 20th century, if that is what you think I was endorsing. Both Guam and Puerto Rico have been part of the US since 1898.
`
Otherwise, this list is supposedly title: "“Non-Self-Governing Territories"
`
Yet the places I mentioned are self-governing.

I'm hardly asking for gunboat diplomacy.
.
Many self governing states would happily accede to the US just as others accede to the EU. While the EU involves less loss of sovereignty, the principle is the same: building a deeper more integrated market to achieve higher productivity and incomes, and extending the reach of successful democratic & social institutions.
.
Just as Guam or Costa Rica might vote to become US states, so might Panama, Colombia or Cuba in the future, given appropriate political accommodations. (Just as Turkey, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Morocco and Tunisia all want to join the EU - or at least their governments do.)
.
Extending the reach of liberal US markets and successful institutions, and achieving faster cross-state transmission of capital, productivity enhancements & good business models, could certainly contribute to human prosperity.
.
More (politically astute) American expansionism would be welcome. This is about free markets, human rights & liberal western values.

OK. I thought you were implying that I was advocating some sort of colonialist program.
`
As for Turkey, there is a little known historical fact that Armenia was offered as a mandate by the allies to the US after WWI. If you don't believe me, check on the Republican Platform of 1920, where they are like, this is a horrible idea!
`
They also complained of too much executive power....

Currencies really aren't so important though - what matters for more is the level of mutual trade, mutual investment, business expansion & operation across borders, migration, institutional convergence and other such things.
.
Dollarization (whether to the dollar, euro or other currencies) can be a rough proxy for this, but doesn't have to be (and certainly not in an ordinal sense). In most countries in the latter 20th century, dollarization was just a consequence of a messy break up of the Breton Woods system in countries with weak domestic financial sectors & poor domestic-currency access to trade or business finance.
.
The US could have used this as a basis for greater influence, trade/ market integration and institutional convergence - but policy has been dominated almost entirely by (1) the cold war/ real politik and (2) domestic politics. Sadly.

Who predicted that? "Many predicted 50 years ago that by now maybe half of Latin America and the Caribbean "
`
50 years ago was 1963, when there was considerable nationalism across many of those countries, and threat of revolution and insurgencies (inspired by the example of Cuba).

@Michael Dunne - Futurists - sci-fi writers, Robert Heinlein, Aurthr C. Clarke, etc. Read more about their predictions in the PaleoFuture Blog. Politicians of 1963 didn't look 50 years out - they looked toward the next election.

Well if the entire hemisphere merged into a true United States of America, I guess we could have Miami be the capital since that seems the one place everyone would be partial to going to (Canadians, Brazilians, etc.).
`
I will check out the blog when I get the chance.

Join the Union? What an insane idea. Commit future generations of young Americans to die in its defense in future wars with strong regional powers? WHY???? Think before you post. It will serve you well.

Well your post seems a bit overexcited to put it mildly. Which strong regional powers are you talking about?
`
I would be interested in hearing ideas in regards to the Caribean. Are you anticipating an invasion by Cuba or Venezuela?
`
As for Guam, well there is already a huge military presence there. My guess is the Navy at least would not be keen to give it up, especially if there is a "strong regional power" seeking to establish a sphere of influence over it.
`
And guess what, the US already did fight for the Guam, in WWII, in crippling the Japanese Navy and retaking the island.
`
So which regional powers in the Pacific do you anticipate possibly taking hostile actions around Guam in the future?
`